literaryhistoryo02crut - Carmel Apologetics

336 THE APOLOGISTS.
the point us a rhetorician, l»ul simply states it. Tertullian
(Irivos it home with inexoral)l(' rii^oiir, and takes care that it
shall leave its sting. Again, Justin is the first to point out
the analogies l)etween Christian doctrines and many heathen
superstitions which in his system admit of a ])hilosophic
explanation, but which in that of Tertullian merely serve
to a forensic victory. It is true that he falls into some inaccuracies,
notably in declaring
that Simon Magus was worshipped
as a god in Rome, and citing as evidence the existence
of a statue with the inscription " SLMONI DEO SANCTO." Here
also he is followed by Tertullian, but not l)y the better instructed
Hippolytus, who had probably seen the inscription
and was aware that it referred not to Simon Magus, but to
the Sabine deity Semo Sancus.
It has often been remarked that Justin's quotations from
the Old Testament are for the most part correctly given,
while those from the New differ considerably from our texts.
The reason is not far to seek. In the former Justin had the
open roll before him ;
in the latter he trusted to his memory.
And his memory, though extensive, was not always accurate.
He speaks of Ilerod as sending the manuscript of the Hebrew
Scriptures to Ptolemy, an error of more than a century.
speaks of Moses as keeping the flock of his maternal uncle,
apparently confounding him with Jacob. He speaks of
Musonius Rufus as suffering death for his freedom of speech,
whereas he was only l)anished and afterwards recalled.
(piotes several passages from his favourite Plato incorrectly.
There is therefore no need to suppose that in his professed
citations from the words of Christ and the memoirs of the
Apostles he used dilFerent documents from those which have
come down to us. The question how far he was in possession
of our canonical New Testament is one of the deepest
the(jlogical interest, and has l)een thoroughly discussed by
many able writers, notably by Westcott and Sanday. The
conclusion at which they arrive is that tliough he departs
more or less widely from our text, and adduces some details
of
tradition which are absent from our New Testament, yet
the geneml concurrence of fact and language is sufficiently
He
He